Top Law Schools

.

MichelFoucault wrote:individuals who score in the low 170's and individuals who score in the high 170's?

Do you think the students at or below the 25th LSAT % at harvard and yale differ from the students at or above the 75th %? If so, to what degree?

I'd say they differ by about 5 points or so.

I think that there isn't a substantial difference in intelligence between two persons who score within 3-4 points of each other. The difference in scores could be due to one of many factors: bubbling error, nerves, messing up a rule on a logic game, etc.

The LSAT does not measure intelligence.

....

.

I think there is a difference between the performance of a 170 and a 180. Is there an intelligence difference? Probably some, but not necessarily.

But I think the difference between someone with a 170 and 175, and a 175 and 180 is too close to call.

LSAT is a poor intelligence indicator. It is too learnable and tops out too early.

MichelFoucault wrote:

angioletto wrote:The LSAT does not measure intelligence.

Whether its comforting to the ego or not its a pretty darn reliable proxy.

No, it really isn't. There are a number of things that can explain a disparity in scores between two applicants other than, and even better than, a measurable difference in intelligence level.

those of us who score in the high 170s are, on average, 4% sexier than people with low 170s.

angioletto wrote:The LSAT does not measure intelligence.

It does not measure only intelligence, but intelligence is definitely a factor in LSAT scoring.

Having said that, I believe that the difference between a 173 and a 178 is not intelligence but rather speed and precision. The 173 test-taker is probably capable (in terms of raw intelligence and reasoning skills) of answering every question on the test correctly. Give him a few extra minutes and he'll score higher. With only 35 minutes, however, he doesn't have enough time to get every question right. The 178 test-taker is the guy/gal who can work faster while still avoiding careless errors. Speed and precision FTW.

My PTs are consistently 171-175. I've never broken 176. The LSAT isn't an accurate measure of raw intelligence, but it's measuring *something*... and whatever it is, I haven't got enough of it to reach 178.

^ sure you do. just keep practicing.

When I look at the above post all I can see this:

aether wrote:I was born and bred for speed and precision.

superserial wrote:^ sure you do. just keep practicing.

LOL! Definitely not. I'm in my Happy Place hugging my December score, and will never take another LSAT.

aether wrote:LOL! Definitely not. I'm in my Happy Place hugging my December score, and will never take another LSAT.

That's how I want to feel.... unfortunately I have no happy place

aether wrote:

superserial wrote:^ sure you do. just keep practicing.

LOL! Definitely not. I'm in my Happy Place hugging my December score, and will never take another LSAT.

haha oh, I was under the impression you never took the real thing. 171-175 on the real deal is definitely a happy place

MichelFoucault wrote:individuals who score in the low 170's and individuals who score in the high 170's?

Do you think the students at or below the 25th LSAT % at harvard and yale differ from the students at or above the 75th %? If so, to what degree?

sure. from my perspective, the only scores that matter are the ones higher than yours, i.e. your applicant 'competition'. so the way i see it, a 170 is to a 175 what a 120 is to a 157. if you think the disparity is big between a 120 and a 157, then so should a 170 and a 175.

of course, there is a sliding scale in the significance of a higher score, because of increasing scarcity of people with high scores to begin with. very broadly, i'd think it pretty much stops mattering at about 178 (since you'd be above both yale and harvard's 75th).

of course, gpa does factor in to all of this too, thus changing what a 'substantial' difference actually constitutes..


ps. i am defining 'substantial' difference, not in terms of intellectual ability/capacity/aptitude, but in terms of admissions and adcom perception.

aether wrote:

angioletto wrote:The LSAT does not measure intelligence.

It does not measure only intelligence, but intelligence is definitely a factor in LSAT scoring.

Having said that, I believe that the difference between a 173 and a 178 is not intelligence but rather speed and precision. The 173 test-taker is probably capable (in terms of raw intelligence and reasoning skills) of answering every question on the test correctly. Give him a few extra minutes and he'll score higher. With only 35 minutes, however, he doesn't have enough time to get every question right. The 178 test-taker is the guy/gal who can work faster while still avoiding careless errors. Speed and precision FTW.

My PTs are consistently 171-175. I've never broken 176. The LSAT isn't an accurate measure of raw intelligence, but it's measuring *something*... and whatever it is, I haven't got enough of it to reach 178.

personally, i believe speed (while maintaining precision) a learnable element of the lsat, though not 'learnable in the sense of, let's say, how to do a contrapositive. i think the issue is one of development. you can develop those speed and accuracy skills but it takes time (which is, somewhat ironically, the very thing you are trying to eliminate from your test taking).

it's like typing speed, though everyone memorizes where the keys are located on a keyboard, not everyone takes the time to learn how to type both quickly and accurately. to do the latter, you have to 'learn' other - likely 'boring' - things. not only do you have to know where the keys 'are' but you also have to understand that certain fingers can hit certain keys in more rapid succession than other fingers, etc etc.

tricky but doable, i think.

First off, I agree with the majority of posters (the LSAT is not an IQ test but a test of skills relevant to the intellectual activities -- not ones related to motivation -- you'll do in your first year of law school). But skip james' posting about speed made me think of this interesting book that I'm reading - The Brain That Changes Itself. It's generally about neuroplasticity, the idea that thoughts can change the structure and function of our brains. One part discusses how one gets better at tasks like classical guitar: that the brain starts to speed up its ability to differentiate between different finger movements (or sounds). I think this also applies to improving on the LSAT. The more you can clarify the ideas underneath the questions, the words, the games, the faster you can go. But then it's also about telling yourself to speed up -- I notice that I tend to think that my brains can only go at speed X, when it often can go quite faster if I simply practice doing so.

Obviously, not many people can think fast and clearly enough to score a 180. Nerves are also a huge element to this -- and there are no doubt certain subtle cultural socio-economic issues around standardized testing that disadvantages people in ways that are unfair (though in some respects, the LSAT is fairer than many other measuring sticks).

I wonder whether the caliber of the discussion at Yale would be different if the median was 174 instead of 178 (or whatever it is)? Perhaps just the speed of thought would be -- and as long as people finished their thoughts before speaking, there'd be no difference. I think the caliber might be different between a class of 153 and 173 because then you start triggering larger trends of educational background and abilities (with noticeable exceptions). I work around people who can consistently score in the 170s, and have not noticed any difference between the low 170 folks and the high 170 folks. Perhaps a faster processing speed, but in most situations, even ones that are about creating an LSAT curriculum or materials, that does not really matter. From what I see, in courtroom law, the preparation you put in matters more than your processing speed, and the LSAT is not predictive of one's ability there as far as I know.

No doubt about it, there's a lot of other issues around the LSAT -- around the pernicious effect of US News and World Reports Rankings and the relationship of ranking to funding, etc.

And that concludes this ramble.

MichelFoucault wrote:individuals who score in the low 170's and individuals who score in the high 170's?

Do you think the students at or below the 25th LSAT % at harvard and yale differ from the students at or above the 75th %? If so, to what degree?

if the LSAT has you worrying about your self worth, i'd spend some more time worrying about your self image.

rw2264 wrote:i'd spend some more time worrying about your self image.

LOL. Yeah, that sounds productive!

Atlas LSAT Teacher wrote: But skip james' posting about speed made me think of this interesting book that I'm reading - The Brain That Changes Itself. It's generally about neuroplasticity, the idea that thoughts can change the structure and function of our brains. One part discusses how one gets better at tasks like classical guitar: that the brain starts to speed up its ability to differentiate between different finger movements (or sounds). I think this also applies to improving on the LSAT. The more you can clarify the ideas underneath the questions, the words, the games, the faster you can go. But then it's also about telling yourself to speed up -- I notice that I tend to think that my brains can only go at speed X, when it often can go quite faster if I simply practice doing so.

i think i read that a while back, actually. hmm... now that i think about it, it might have been when i was studying for the lsat. mighta been when i was trying to figure out how to make my brain work better, haha.

rw2264 wrote:

MichelFoucault wrote:individuals who score in the low 170's and individuals who score in the high 170's?

Do you think the students at or below the 25th LSAT % at harvard and yale differ from the students at or above the 75th %? If so, to what degree?

if the LSAT has you worrying about your self worth, i'd spend some more time worrying about your self image.

I'm sure you've been accustomed to "worrying about your self image" in your ivory tower.

MichelFoucault wrote:

rw2264 wrote:

MichelFoucault wrote:individuals who score in the low 170's and individuals who score in the high 170's?

Do you think the students at or below the 25th LSAT % at harvard and yale differ from the students at or above the 75th %? If so, to what degree?

if the LSAT has you worrying about your self worth, i'd spend some more time worrying about your self image.

I'm sure you've been accustomed to "worrying about your self image" in your ivory tower.

That was a stupid comeback, and hes right anyways.

Pearalegal wrote:

MichelFoucault wrote:

rw2264 wrote:

MichelFoucault wrote:individuals who score in the low 170's and individuals who score in the high 170's?

Do you think the students at or below the 25th LSAT % at harvard and yale differ from the students at or above the 75th %? If so, to what degree?

if the LSAT has you worrying about your self worth, i'd spend some more time worrying about your self image.

I'm sure you've been accustomed to "worrying about your self image" in your ivory tower.

That was a stupid comeback, and hes right anyways.

Agreed his statement had merit, but it is much easier to make when you are coming from an ivy league school. There are students who come from vastly different backgrounds and never had the opportunity to experience being in a classroom with other highly qualified and competitive students.

I think it is quite natural for someone in that position to have some doubts about their ability to compete in such an environment.

How much effort you have to put in to score in the high 170s is a better indicator of intelligence than the score itself. The same goes for GPA. You can study your ass off and get good grades/scores and that means you're dedicated and hard working but if you're getting there without working/studying hard, then you probably got the brains.